Well, the work is the child, and the film is the child altered
[In reply to]

Can't Post

the protectionism is still tied to what is being protected. In this case, it is the memory of the child.

A story can definitely be damaged by different tellings. A legend may be expanded by different tellings and deepened in popular conciousness. . . but a story with one definitive original telling is more like a cannonical tome than a loosely translated legend. You might not damage the spreading of the tale, but you can definitely damage or even obliterate the original story, and if you alter it enough you can even loose the spirit and intent of the tale.

There comes a point at which an adaptation team really does have a moral and artistic obligation to change the label of "based upon," to "loosely based upon" and sometimes simply to "inspired by" lol. Because, like it or not, many movie audiences, while understanding that there will likely be some omissions, expect a work to be a mostly faithful and honest representation if it bears the same name as the source and is intended as a direct adaptation rather than a liberally altered derivative work. I am not saying The Hobbit has reached that point by any means, but caution should be applied.

In Reply To

The film is not the child. The attitude is one of protectionism or not. I don't believe a story is damaged by different tellings or different elements but thrives on it.

And one's attitude to different elements depends entirely on what one is looking for and how it plays out. I have no issue with conflicting details in different tellings.

LR

"Hear me, hounds of Sauron, Gandalf is here! Fly if you value your foul skins, I will shrivel you from tail to snout if you step within this circle!"

"Do not be to eager to deal out death in judgement. Even the very wise cannot see all ends."